A fantastic film that delivers the scariest zombies yet

Rating: 10/10 (1 July 2003)

For a VERY long time I have been unsatisfied with any films regarding zombies as the main monster or villain. Always feeling that the genre has so much potential that's so rarely tapped into, I came to fear that "28 Days Later..." would turn out like another "Resident Evil": a shoddily crafted piece of celluloid sludge made solely to interest the fans of horror films just long enough to steal eight dollars from their pockets and two hours of their time that they could never have back.
How delighted I am that I was wrong.
"28 Days Later..." gave me absolutely everything I wanted but could never find in a zombie film while keeping the elements from past favorites such as "Dawn of the Dead" and "Night of the Living Dead" that attracted me to the genre in the first place.

The story begins with an infected chimp attacking a small animal activist group before quickly shifting twenty-eight days ahead to a man waking from a coma in a hospital that's been completely abandoned. He soon discovers that England's been infected with a virus that turns humans into rampaging zombies (and blindingly fast ones at that), before coming across more survivors, and even more terrors.
Though Boyle may have used cheaper, digital video equipment because of the budget, I actually found the cinematography truly stunning and beautiful to look at throughout the story (That is, when blood wasn't being smattered across it. And even then in a few cases), and would continually admire the shots he chose during scenes. I loved the grittiness that the digital film granted, and found the lighting and makeup to be wonderful as well. The film feels extremely cold and desolate, and fits perfectly with the "last humans on Earth" vibe.
Perhaps what I enjoyed most about the film is that it constantly takes situations from other zombie films that might produce a frustrated groan from the casual or logical viewer and completely turns them on their ear for much more gratifying results (SPOILER: For example, while in most zombie films someone within the group would become infected and lead to scenes or dialogue about the moral quandry of 'We know we SHOULD kill him, but he's still our friend...! *boohooboohoo*,' in this film the characters take no chances. When Mark, one of the two survivors Jim initially meets, becomes infected, Selena, the other survivor, waits maybe a total of two seconds before hacking away at him with her machete, and notifies Jim that she'll do the same to him should she have to, "...In a heartbeat." END SPOILER).

And the film never refers to the blindingly fast and deadly creatures that litter the film as "zombies" at all. They refer to them solely as "the infected," and the script makes the attempt to comment on human nature by proclaiming that they are solely infected with "rage." But whatever the reason for their existence, one thing is certain: their sheer numbers combined with the ability to run creates some of the most pulse-pounding and suspenseful scenes I've ever seen in a zombie film (SPOILER: Try changing a flat tire in a tunnel with hordes of zombies coming at you, with rats fleeing before them, and see how YOU feel! END SPOILER). And because the cast is so wonderful and the script so well-written, I actually found myself CARING about what was happening to the characters, which is a surprising turn from the normal "Ho-hum, wonder if I can guess which order they'll die in" attitude that zombie movies (or horror movies in general) produce in me.
This film offers everything a zombie fan could ask for: (MINOR SPOILERS) an "apocalyptic, no-communications, handful-of-survivors" world, terrifyingly deadly zombies, a small band of soldiers armed to the teeth, and even the obligatory "last stand at the safehouse" intermixed with "zombie feeding frenzy" scenes near the end, all while being held together with a wonderful story and superb acting on all sides.
Oh, and gore. Lots and lots of gore (How's zombies vomiting up blood for ya? Gory enough?).
I can not express how much this film not only lived up to, but exceeded my expectations. If you're a horror fan who believes that there isn't anything wrong with the zombie sub-genre the way it is (Insert shot of old man in rocking chair on porch grumbling, "In my day, we only had blue makeup, people who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag, laughable dialogue, and a script with plot holes the size of Texas. And we LIKED it that way!" before vigorously shaking fist while yelling at the local children, "Get offa my lawn!"), then please avoid this film. For those of you who are tired of the routine, cookie-cutter zombie film that too closely resembles the zombie film that came before it, and are ready for a horror film that delivers the goods in unsuspecting and terrifyingly wonderful ways, then please, by all means, go see "28 Days Later..." and enjoy.